United States v. Jose Marin-Payan
672 F. App'x 435
5th Cir.2016Background
- Defendant Jose Luis Marin-Payan pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 60 months imprisonment and three years supervised release within the Guidelines range.
- After Booker, sentencing review requires examination for procedural error and substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
- The Presentence Report (PSR) converted $5,470 in cash seized at arrest into drug-quantity amounts, increasing the guideline range.
- Marin-Payan objected, arguing the cash did not reflect the scale of the offense and invoked U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 comment. (n.5) and Henderson; he conceded review is for plain error.
- The district court adopted the PSR, considered the addendum and parties’ responses (including Note 5), and found the cash conversion supported by circumstantial evidence; Marin-Payan presented no rebuttal evidence.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding no clear or obvious error in the district court’s Note 5 analysis or in its factual finding converting cash to drug-quantity amounts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by failing to make findings under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.5 regarding cash-to-drug conversion | District court failed to find that seized cash did not reflect the scale of the offense; Note 5 requires such findings (relying on Henderson) | District court considered PSR addendum and parties’ responses and implicitly addressed Note 5 | No plain error; district court sufficiently considered Note 5 and did not commit clear/obvious error |
| Whether the district court clearly erred in converting $5,470 cash to drug-quantity amounts | Marin-Payan’s post-arrest statements show cash was not proceeds of large-scale dealing; conversion unsupported | Circumstantial evidence supported conversion; PSR information reliable; defendant offered no rebuttal evidence | No clear error; factual finding plausible in light of the record; conversion upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (establishing advisory Guidelines and standard for sentencing review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing sentences)
- United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. 2010) (describing post-Booker review standards)
- United States v. Trujillo, 502 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2007) (standard for reviewing district court’s application of the Guidelines and factual findings)
- United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2013) (factual findings not clearly erroneous if plausible in light of the record)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard for forfeited objections)
- United States v. Arviso-Mata, 442 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2006) (plain-error review in sentencing context)
- United States v. Henderson, 254 F.3d 543 (5th Cir. 2001) (discussing Note 5 and cash-to-drug conversion arguments)